• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:01
CEST 23:01
KST 06:01
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S Season 1 - RO8 Preview3[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Progenitors8Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A: Rogue, Percival, Solar, Zoun13[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Inheritors16[ASL21] Ro16 Preview Pt2: All Star10
Community News
Maestros of The Game 2 announcement and schedule !4Weekly Cups (April 27-May 4): Clem takes triple0RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event12Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results12026 GSL Season 1 Qualifiers25
StarCraft 2
General
Code S Season 1 - RO8 Preview Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book Weekly Cups (April 27-May 4): Clem takes triple Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results
Tourneys
Maestros of The Game 2 announcement and schedule ! GSL Code S Season 1 (2026) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
Custom Maps
[D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3 [A] Nemrods 1/4 players
External Content
Mutation # 524 Death and Taxes The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 523 Firewall Mutation # 522 Flip My Base
Brood War
General
Do we have a pimpest plays list? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ (Spoiler) Asl ro8 D winner interview BW General Discussion AI Question
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [ASL21] Ro8 Day 4 [BSL22] RO16 Group Stage - 02 - 10 May [ASL21] Ro8 Day 3
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates What's the deal with APM & what's its true value Any training maps people recommend?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread OutLive 25 (RTS Game) Daigo vs Menard Best of 10
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming
League of Legends
G2 just beat GenG in First stand
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread The Letting Off Steam Thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread 3D technology/software discussion
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread McBoner: A hockey love story Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
streaming software Strange computer issues (software) [G] How to Block Livestream Ads
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
How EEG Data Can Predict Gam…
TrAiDoS
ramps on octagon
StaticNine
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2130 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1113

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands22348 Posts
June 14 2014 15:22 GMT
#22241
On June 15 2014 00:18 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:
On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.

But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...

He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous...

This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble.

I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.

Quick question:
Why do we care about muslims killing the muslims that we were killing 10 years ago? Neither of them are our friends now. The only friends we have in the area are Saudi Arabia and Israel, and if the extremists (gasp) take back over all that our allies will see is a regional return to the status quo.
So the worst thing that is going to happen is that everything in the middle east returns to business as usual: A bunch of islamic extremists threatening to destroy Israel while covering their nuts with both hands so Israel doesn't kick them in the dick.

Now, throw all that aside and pretend we actually have a reason to want to stop these extremists: How the hell are you going to propose we do that? We already tried direct confrontation in the first and second Iraq war and, as it turns out, killing extremists on their own soil (at this point they're known as freedom fighters) only tends to breed a new, stronger generation of extremists with more extensive military experience. Also that and spending the lives of their civilians, our soldiers, and our tax dollars for literally NO GAIN (unless you call further destabilizing the region gain). Without a permanent or longterm (20-50+ years) occupation, we're not going to do anything useful there because we have already shot ourselves in the foot and given so much ammunition to our enemies.
For the so called goal of stability we have three options:
-Occupy long enough to get rid of generational hatred
-Kill them down to the last woman and child
-Let the region stabilize itself

But please, do feel free to share your knowledge on why fighting a bunch of freedom fighters on their own soil for absolutely no benefit to us is an intelligent and necessary undertaking for our country.

The problem with doing nothing is your giving a terrorist organization who split from Al-Qaeda because they were to soft the power of a nation.
Now to some of us that is a bad thing but if you wanne sit back and see what happens after im all for it. Just don't complain when a lot of Americans get killed again.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18857 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 15:26:16
June 14 2014 15:24 GMT
#22242
Here's any excellent bit from the NYRoB on why tying tenure to performance is a recipe for further disaster in K-12 education.

Last week, Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu in Los Angeles ruled that five California statutes protecting the job security of schoolteachers were unconstitutional. Likening his brief, sixteen-page ruling to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools, Judge Treu invalidated laws protecting teacher tenure and seniority. He said that the effect of these laws was to deny high-quality education to minority children by making it difficult to fire “grossly ineffective” teachers.

The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara v. California, have powerful backers and Judge Treu’s decision in their favor could have far-reaching implications. The case was filed by Students Matter, an advocacy group created by a Silicon Valley fiber-optics multi-millionaire named David Welch, and the decision has brought loud cheers from Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, as well as from various conservative groups, hedge-funders, and other advocates of tying teachers’ jobs to student test scores. Welch and his allies have said they plan to challenge tenure in other states. But was the judge right?

The case itself, which was brought on behalf of nine minority plaintiffs, was weak. No evidence was presented that any of the plaintiffs had teachers who were “grossly ineffective.” None of the teachers in question had negative evaluations. One student referred by name to a “bad teacher” who had in fact been named Pasadena’s teacher of the year. Two of the nine students were enrolled in charter schools, where teachers have neither tenure nor seniority. The Vergara sisters—after whom the case is named—attend a “pilot” school in Los Angeles where teachers may be dismissed for ineffectiveness.

The theory behind the case is that differences in test scores can be largely attributed to the quality of the teacher. Students who have “great teachers” will get high test scores year after year, which means they are more likely to go to college and earn a higher lifetime income. Even one such teacher, so goes the theory, can have this remarkable effect on students. On the other hand, said one of the expert witnesses cited by the judge, one bad teacher can cause students to lose an entire year of learning.

In fact, however, researchers overwhelmingly agree that family income and family education are the largest determinants of academic performance. Only a few months ago, the American Statistical Association said that teachers account for only between 1 percent and 14 percent of the variation among students in test scores. “The majority of opportunities for quality improvement,” said ASA, “are found in the system-level conditions”—that is, variables such as resources, class size, school leadership, the quality of the curriculum, and other factors that are mostly beyond the control of a single teacher.


Making Schools Poor
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
BronzeKnee
Profile Joined March 2011
United States5219 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 15:36:08
June 14 2014 15:27 GMT
#22243
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.

But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...

He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous...

This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble.

I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.


To say this is Obama's problem is silly. In fact, that line of thinking is why politics is screwed up in America, it is shameful. We are all in this together, and this is the world's problem, created in parts by our good friend, GW and Imperialism dating back hundreds of years.

Republicans want military action now in Iraq to protect oil interests. Dollar bills are involved. Hopefully we are smart enough to value our lives over our pockets. Iraq doesn't want democracy and the only reason it lasted so long is because US troops in the country fought to defend their democracy.

People self determine their government, and with their military fleeing, Iraqis obviously aren't deeply committed to democracy; they aren't willing to die for it. And that is the problem, the misguided attempt to install democracy in a country that doesn't want it and isn't willing to fight to defend it, means it will fall apart.

And you know when people are ready for democracy because they will be willing to spill their blood against an oppressive government fighting for it (like in the American Revolution!). That is when the US should step in. But there was no rebellion in Iraq. And historically, dictatorships do a great job of holding countries together, while democracies highlight differences between people as voting blocs develop, and can rip them apart. Iraq can be a single dictatorship, but it is three different democracies.

I wrote papers about how Iraq was going to fall apart in high school 10 years when we first invaded. Very sad for the Iraqi people, but not at all surprising.
Falling
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada11509 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 15:39:04
June 14 2014 15:37 GMT
#22244
edit
Oh geez. I guess I didn't hit refresh from yesterday. This comment will seem really out of left-field, but had to do with the polarization and two party system conversation.

I would also throw in legal gerrymandering as another cause for growing polarization in the US. If you can't clean sweep the bums out of office (like we did with the Mulroney-Campbell Conservatives or the Fudget-Budget NDP), then I think frustration will grow with the opposing party which you can never properly punish. And frustration with any main politician in general, because not much changes because the same guys keep getting voted in. Furthermore, without a true contest from other side of the spectrum because voter groups have been divided up, your greatest threat is ideological purity rather than broad consensus.
ModeratorDavid Duke, Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes, Daily Stormer... "Some very fine people on both sides"
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
June 14 2014 15:48 GMT
#22245
On June 15 2014 00:22 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 00:18 Jormundr wrote:
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:
On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.

But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...

He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous...

This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble.

I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.

Quick question:
Why do we care about muslims killing the muslims that we were killing 10 years ago? Neither of them are our friends now. The only friends we have in the area are Saudi Arabia and Israel, and if the extremists (gasp) take back over all that our allies will see is a regional return to the status quo.
So the worst thing that is going to happen is that everything in the middle east returns to business as usual: A bunch of islamic extremists threatening to destroy Israel while covering their nuts with both hands so Israel doesn't kick them in the dick.

Now, throw all that aside and pretend we actually have a reason to want to stop these extremists: How the hell are you going to propose we do that? We already tried direct confrontation in the first and second Iraq war and, as it turns out, killing extremists on their own soil (at this point they're known as freedom fighters) only tends to breed a new, stronger generation of extremists with more extensive military experience. Also that and spending the lives of their civilians, our soldiers, and our tax dollars for literally NO GAIN (unless you call further destabilizing the region gain). Without a permanent or longterm (20-50+ years) occupation, we're not going to do anything useful there because we have already shot ourselves in the foot and given so much ammunition to our enemies.
For the so called goal of stability we have three options:
-Occupy long enough to get rid of generational hatred
-Kill them down to the last woman and child
-Let the region stabilize itself

But please, do feel free to share your knowledge on why fighting a bunch of freedom fighters on their own soil for absolutely no benefit to us is an intelligent and necessary undertaking for our country.

The problem with doing nothing is your giving a terrorist organization who split from Al-Qaeda because they were to soft the power of a nation.
Now to some of us that is a bad thing but if you wanne sit back and see what happens after im all for it. Just don't complain when a lot of Americans get killed again.

I wouldn't dream of it. We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. We gave them plenty of reasons to want us dead in the perfect environment to breed retaliatory terrorism. Then we did it again in 2003, only on a much larger scale. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
June 14 2014 16:53 GMT
#22246
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands22348 Posts
June 14 2014 16:56 GMT
#22247
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts

Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23932 Posts
June 14 2014 17:01 GMT
#22248
On June 15 2014 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts

Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?


Yes if you compared the jobs at each time it's undeniable that the jobs are shittier. They expect you to work harder and be more productive than 10 years ago for less money.

One of several reasons the DOW is at record highs with corporate profits yet wages are stagnant, and people need 2-3 jobs just to stay afloat.

Rising tide my ass.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 17:42:31
June 14 2014 17:40 GMT
#22249
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
June 14 2014 17:41 GMT
#22250
On June 15 2014 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts

Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?

I'm not sure about that. Manufacturing and construction have done really poorly and those industries aren't heavy on high education jobs.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:11:10
June 14 2014 18:10 GMT
#22251
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

Show nested quote +
By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:21:44
June 14 2014 18:17 GMT
#22252
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

Actually you have been echoing radical propaganda by claiming that 9/11 was a result of American politics in the middle-east.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:40:42
June 14 2014 18:29 GMT
#22253
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.

While I agree that Islam is being used as the excuse for imperial expansion, I do not believe that our significant intervention and continued presence in the region is unrelated to our being targeted by extremists in the region.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:45:40
June 14 2014 18:39 GMT
#22254
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure, as they have for centuries.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
June 14 2014 18:55 GMT
#22255
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 14 2014 21:44 GMT
#22256
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.
Adreme
Profile Joined June 2011
United States5574 Posts
June 14 2014 22:08 GMT
#22257
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.


I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.
Livelovedie
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States492 Posts
June 14 2014 22:10 GMT
#22258
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure, as they have for centuries.


I don't think you can really disconnect the two. Would there be ethnic tensions without the west? Probably, but it didn't help that we drew shitty borders. How much fighting would have occurred if those borders were drawn with ethnic groups, you can't say.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 14 2014 22:13 GMT
#22259
On June 15 2014 07:08 Adreme wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.


I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.

Interesting. How do you know?
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands22348 Posts
June 14 2014 22:15 GMT
#22260
On June 15 2014 07:08 Adreme wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.


I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.

Oo they have been massacring themselves in Iraq since the moment Saddam fell. You can't just 'reach out' when one side is determined to remove the other from existence.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Prev 1 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 59m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 558
Hui .190
JuggernautJason15
CosmosSc2 9
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 3138
ggaemo 184
Dewaltoss 67
NaDa 11
Dota 2
monkeys_forever366
League of Legends
Doublelift2469
Reynor67
Counter-Strike
fl0m1977
Super Smash Bros
PPMD43
Other Games
Grubby3221
Gorgc2615
Liquid`RaSZi2042
tarik_tv1551
FrodaN1106
qojqva659
shahzam439
mouzStarbuck405
Liquid`Hasu265
syndereN125
ArmadaUGS80
Mew2King65
UpATreeSC55
ViBE18
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1891
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 22
• Adnapsc2 19
• Reevou 1
• Kozan
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 36
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota264
League of Legends
• imaqtpie2145
Other Games
• Scarra565
• Shiphtur357
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
2h 59m
Escore
12h 59m
The PondCast
12h 59m
WardiTV Invitational
13h 59m
Zoun vs Ryung
Lambo vs ShoWTimE
Big Brain Bouts
18h 59m
Fjant vs Bly
Serral vs Shameless
OSC
1d
Replay Cast
1d 2h
CranKy Ducklings
1d 12h
RSL Revival
1d 12h
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
1d 13h
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
[ Show More ]
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 17h
BSL
1d 21h
Artosis vs TerrOr
spx vs StRyKeR
Replay Cast
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Cure vs Zoun
Clem vs Lambo
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
BSL
2 days
Dewalt vs DragOn
Aether vs Jimin
GSL
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Soma vs Leta
Wardi Open
3 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
OSC
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Light vs Flash
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-05-05
WardiTV TLMC #16
Nations Cup 2026

Ongoing

BSL Season 22
ASL Season 21
CSL 2026 SPRING (S20)
IPSL Spring 2026
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 2
Acropolis #4
SCTL 2026 Spring
RSL Revival: Season 5
2026 GSL S1
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S2: W6
KK 2v2 League Season 1
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
YSL S3
Escore Tournament S2: W7
Escore Tournament S2: W8
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Maestros of the Game 2
2026 GSL S2
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
PGL Astana 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.